[DCRM-L] local data in OCLC

[Allison Jai O'Dell]

Granted, we're talking about MARC records, so I'm not sure that "proper
data modeling" is a consideration available to this conversation.  :-P

Given the environment that we're in, Francis, I think your two major
concerns are solvable:
1)  If OCLC user interfaces (WorldCat, FirstSearch) displayed the MARC data
"Blah blah blah $5 abc" as "Blah blah blah (ABC Library)"
2)  If you don't want to import other people's local notes, set your import
scripts to strip out anything with a $5 that's not your library.

On the flipside, when you *do* want access to other people's local notes,
they're all in one place.  To me, the $5 is the best way *in MARC* to build
aggregated access to local information.  It's a simple stop-gap solution *for
now*.  Moving forward (post-MARC), we can create proper parent-child
(master-local) relationships.  (And all the more reason to kill MARC
quickly?  MARC has never worked well for rare materials.  This is just one
example.)


Open to counter-arguments,

Allison



On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Lapka, Francis <francis.lapka at yale.edu>
wrote:

> I think it would do more harm than good to expand the use of 500 ‡5 and
> other non-local note fields for our local data.
>
>
>
> From a practical standpoint – I’ll spare everyone my objections on the
> grounds of proper data modeling – my primary objection to using 500 ‡5 in
> this context is illustrated by the *Plexus* screenshot in Deborah’s
> initial email. In that record, there are three notes concerning the SIU
> copy that are presented (in Worldcat.org) as information concerning the
> Manifestation. There’s no indication that the information applies to a
> single copy. That’s disastrous. Even if OCLC corrected its display to show
> that this is item-specific data, do we really trust it to present the
> item-specific information in a coherent manner if **multiple**
> institutions have recorded local information?
>
>
>
> Consider also the impact from the standpoint of cataloging workflow. For
> as long as we’re importing records from OCLC to our local catalogs, I’d
> rather not have to do more weeding out of local information that doesn’t
> apply to my copy. Let’s endeavor to leave Master Records free of
> copy-specific information.
>
>
>
> Francis
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20150830/e92fc2d7/attachment.html>